With regard to the more general question of "junk econometrics" and both cointegration and the Granger causality test, I am presuming that someone is actually using these tests in a technically correct manner. One very common form of "junk econometrics" which can apply to any econometric technique is to missapply or misspecify or to use "junk data," etc. when using such a test. In other words, to misuse the test. But there are a million ways (at least) to do that, and it can be done with any econometric technique. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Monday, March 22, 1999 8:28 PM Subject: Re: Junk Econometrics [was School vouchers]
>J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote:
>
>> I would agree that cointegration is currently considered
>>to be somewhat more advanced and sophisticated than
>>Granger tests. I would say that they are subject to most of
>>the same limitations that Granger tests are. One thing that
>>they avoid is that they are not labeled with a philosophically
>>loaded and provocative name like "causality" which has
>>caused more trouble and fuss over the Granger tests than
>>they are worth.
>
>Ok, so what's the story on cointegration?
>
>Doug
>